I don't think there is a general level of simple or complex protocol, it always will depends on a point of view a machine, AB On 1/15/13, Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@xxxxxxx> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 01/15/2013 04:54 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >> Hi Marc Petit-Huguenin, >> >> I agree that we need to be able to make complex protocol's readable in >> IETF, That is why I am doing an update ID for the RFC2119, I know many >> don't think it is a right thing to do, but I think maybe in future while >> making new versions of the update draft I will get to better discussions, > > Changing RFC 2119 would perhaps permit to manage more complex protocols, > but > this will delay the problem, not fix it. Perhaps there is no other > solution > than using formal languages when going beyond a threshold of complexity, > and > that definitively not something that will be done at the IETF. > > But perhaps there could be enough interest to create an IRTF working group, > on > the subject of writing specifications for complex protocols. > >> >> AB ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 03:21:41 -0800 >> >>> I think there are cases of standards of extreme complexity, such as SIP, >>> >>> where such profiles may be useful, because otherwise interoperability >>> cannot be achieved. >> >> I would not call SIP a standard of extreme complexity, but anyway there is >> >> more and more protocols on a similar complexity - just two protocols that >> I >> am working with currently - RSTP 2.0 and RELOAD - are of similar >> complexity. >> >>> But perhaps the lesson for the IETF here is slightly different - don't >>> design standards which allow that degree of complexity in the first >>> place. >> >> There is no simple solution to a complex problem, so as the problems we >> try >> to solve increase in complexity, so are our solutions to them. But >> perhaps >> you are right in a way. Perhaps the problem is simply that RFC 2119, and >> the issues I and other see with the approach in using as little of the >> keywords as possible, was designed for a time when problems - and >> solutions >> - were simpler. Perhaps RFC 2119 imposes an upper limit on the >> complexity >> that a protocol developed with it can reach, and we are just hitting this >> threshold more and more often. >> >> I am not saying that it is a bad thing - I certainly like simple >> protocols, but perhaps the IETF is simply the wrong place for developing >> complex protocols. > > - -- > Marc Petit-Huguenin > Email: marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org > Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) > > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJQ9VeLAAoJECnERZXWan7E+u0P/1howuEDFI+h9FSV77Cv2YBW > u5+Kfj9fhPp0nhqLr8z/1Hc4YAK/+YPmQ0gDzO5SVtnMTZwE5N3RgPx+yglOZ11X > peZdwNgftMTSZOwc2r1B/gdHdyeVgYtZnEFJicbVgxbW6VirRml8qtYrOGijeh5B > CAneVVqjpF1ou3BXjvGoxCXyP0Tw/XCPt+6+vGYpZ8GApfVizECViYljyZrOeDEG > ZW6vgGnBrV6G+vqRXJRRZELZu2WMnJaC2ADHfCpIdAKCTBKX6Lj7v+7Ni4IAjEYC > Z6hEDynBwaNVODMAuglbmVfC5I2kB45M5JwLoVu8sbfhOrGEJi7CnHDTbi1jW1N/ > 70ZdsQvHbDj0uJL4s6mulwnJOYCh3d7uqAeMEFM5uyMYA+U5/5Dr7RYOhrP/xD0Y > U+Y/YlFz+TLncsio7aYnzEpdjfFDYnbeLLyE0TdjM1kIGPkeKA3GPAdJbW4mDXpg > VAbxGgiS89mSXGOjhlUKjfMEmmF7R21e8kAcubonOp/chu/nqO821qE1lfAYNZ5i > WGHUPPTB/p5iXmhkt9cHESlOB1suW5r5y4Qq5qkz376FraIHIQgflSX4HuE0BBx1 > DEbxoOhr9QgHU6INEt1GBuwxzJW076tD22hkprkl/w90KtbHP2HvjpK5bkNN/MA5 > owExvo14qd9YEq0/SKhk > =YyMX > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >